Shrinking Cities — Blank Canvas Returns
Blank Canvas, an occasional contributor to this site, sent me this write up last night. Let me state for the (hopefully) last time: Blank Canvas IS NOT me...
It's been a while since Ann let me do a post on this blog, but here we go...
Shrinking Cities: possibly the most disappointing, over-hyped exhibition to hit Detroit in the last 10 years.
Let's look at the Cranbrook part first:
It's as if the show's organizers thought, "how can we take an important but rather dry subject and mount a textbook-boring, pseudo-Science Center exhibition around it?" so many charts and graphs! yes, sure, they're art too, blah blah blah, but come on! it was like textbook pages enlarged, nicely framed and called "art." and then there was the actual art - pretty much all of it about decay. I understand that this part of the show was "about" decay, but there's nothing like reinforcing all those stereotypes at the suburban show, eh? give the people what they want, of course! nothing like doing your best to prove to the north of 8 mile crowd that there's only burned out blight south of the borderline... "and if you don't believe scott hocking's photos, Mrs. I-Live-In-Birmingham, have you seen these beautiful charts?"
a note on hocking, mitch cope, clint snider - yes, they are the Big 3 of detroit decay art, but why not show some less known, less socially connected detroit decay artists? there was nothing hip about this show, it was all the old standbys. I saw those hocking prints at a district arts show (in birmingham, no less! shrinking cities for sure.) YEARS ago. hell, including even the over-exposed project orange group would have helped the hipness and cultural relevance (art that fosters real, concrete change - wha?!?)
shrinking cities at cranbrook asked only one question: how many boring ways can you beat visitors over the head with a single, already widely known theme?
***
On to MOCAD's part:
I know these scrappy kids are trying to fight the good fight, but could they be any more insular? there's more nepotism going on at that old car dealership than in most royal families. tracing how someone gets included in a show there is as easy as playing my new favorite game entitled "three degrees of susanne hilberry." (question: is it fair that christopher fachini was included in BOTH MOCAD's first show, "meditations in an emergency," AND this show? answer: no! but chris is friends with [name #1 redacted], and [name #1] is friends with [name #2 redacted], and [name #2] is friends with susanne hilberry. bingo!)
anyway, back to the show: mocad felt way more slapped together. yeah, they claim they "meant it to be that way," but I'm not convinced that it's not really more a matter of "we couldn't do it any other way, 'cause we don't have the staff or the money." still, the work was mostly better and at least this part tried to balance out the Decay Doom of the cranbrook portion. but more than a few of the selections were questionable. for instance, why include a short video on an urban bicycle refurbishing/community rebuilding project in Chicago when there's one HERE IN DETROIT just like it? yeah ...
that pretty much sums up the show for me: sorta thrown together feeling, kinda half-assed/half-hearted seeming, and put on with an interest only in building the reputations and careers of a small group of friends.
yours truly,
Blank Canvas
It's been a while since Ann let me do a post on this blog, but here we go...
Shrinking Cities: possibly the most disappointing, over-hyped exhibition to hit Detroit in the last 10 years.
Let's look at the Cranbrook part first:
It's as if the show's organizers thought, "how can we take an important but rather dry subject and mount a textbook-boring, pseudo-Science Center exhibition around it?" so many charts and graphs! yes, sure, they're art too, blah blah blah, but come on! it was like textbook pages enlarged, nicely framed and called "art." and then there was the actual art - pretty much all of it about decay. I understand that this part of the show was "about" decay, but there's nothing like reinforcing all those stereotypes at the suburban show, eh? give the people what they want, of course! nothing like doing your best to prove to the north of 8 mile crowd that there's only burned out blight south of the borderline... "and if you don't believe scott hocking's photos, Mrs. I-Live-In-Birmingham, have you seen these beautiful charts?"
a note on hocking, mitch cope, clint snider - yes, they are the Big 3 of detroit decay art, but why not show some less known, less socially connected detroit decay artists? there was nothing hip about this show, it was all the old standbys. I saw those hocking prints at a district arts show (in birmingham, no less! shrinking cities for sure.) YEARS ago. hell, including even the over-exposed project orange group would have helped the hipness and cultural relevance (art that fosters real, concrete change - wha?!?)
shrinking cities at cranbrook asked only one question: how many boring ways can you beat visitors over the head with a single, already widely known theme?
***
On to MOCAD's part:
I know these scrappy kids are trying to fight the good fight, but could they be any more insular? there's more nepotism going on at that old car dealership than in most royal families. tracing how someone gets included in a show there is as easy as playing my new favorite game entitled "three degrees of susanne hilberry." (question: is it fair that christopher fachini was included in BOTH MOCAD's first show, "meditations in an emergency," AND this show? answer: no! but chris is friends with [name #1 redacted], and [name #1] is friends with [name #2 redacted], and [name #2] is friends with susanne hilberry. bingo!)
anyway, back to the show: mocad felt way more slapped together. yeah, they claim they "meant it to be that way," but I'm not convinced that it's not really more a matter of "we couldn't do it any other way, 'cause we don't have the staff or the money." still, the work was mostly better and at least this part tried to balance out the Decay Doom of the cranbrook portion. but more than a few of the selections were questionable. for instance, why include a short video on an urban bicycle refurbishing/community rebuilding project in Chicago when there's one HERE IN DETROIT just like it? yeah ...
that pretty much sums up the show for me: sorta thrown together feeling, kinda half-assed/half-hearted seeming, and put on with an interest only in building the reputations and careers of a small group of friends.
yours truly,
Blank Canvas
posted by art blogs are fun at 11:58 PM
45 Comments:
christopher fachini isn't in shrinking cities.
I'm happy to see someone has intelligently pointed out MOCAD's biggest flaw. Nepotism. Those who run the MOCAD should not discard this review. This is a widely shared concern for those of us (your colleague's) in Detroit's 'art scene'.
-z
sassy.
Noticed something. In an art scene where roughly 5 people sell work, and there's nothing to be gained or lost by, more or less, anything one does, why is the answer 'charts' instead of 'experimentation'?
Every show at every gallery that I've ever seen in Detroit looks suspiciously like Art. That's a red alert.
Shrinking Cities looks suspiciously like Art, or more specifically Art-[insert city name here (Miami)] and is therefore largely uninteresting.
dear federline -
try reading. fachini was in BOTH bands that played the opening of shrinking cities. thus, he was in shirking cities.
-bc
about 'decay art'.. the 3 artists mentioned seem to me to be reminding suburban whites of the damage they've left behind in the city. i doubt the suburban audience would pay attention if the artists were anything but white men. not to make it about race.. think of it as the sons going home to tell the parents how screwed up they are.
~it is the responsibility of the oppressed to inform the oppressor of his violations~
whoa dawg! anon, now you're saying only white men/artists can address detroit's decay?! and only they can convey it with any conviction to the white man! cause they caused it.
then only white artists should address racism! sins of our fathers' crap!
screw off kara, kerry james, peter williams, weems, and simpson, saar and colescott and piper and ...
because the white man understands bigotry best!
and with anon's reasoning, black artists should only exhibit their work in depressed urban areas.
i'm not saying only white men can address decay or racism, i was merely suggesting that there the ones the suburban white audience is willing to pay attention to. i didn't say anything about conviction or black artists only should show in urban areas~those must be your ideas.
i do think it's more effective when white people to call each other out when they're being ignorant and disrespectful, and blacks to do the same, rather than each race pointing the finger at the other as the problem.
personally i have much respect snider, hocking and cope as artists.
The insider argument is still empty(no museum is run by the community, there are the founders and then gradually a paid staff)... Just say it like it is--it's a bad show at both places in general, but MOCAD is still very promising, and we still look forward to each showand also look forwad to the day when MOCAD evens itself out...
Anonymous, still a bad argument anyway you phrase it -- since there aren't wall labels identifying the artists as white or black for the general public to identify with or against. Still a bit racist. Why would your brain even go there?
because that's the reality of things. everyone wants to put a blindfold on when it comes to race, but that is the history of detroit. segregation is detroit's biggest downfall, and biggest dinamic. There's a weird energy here, And a fancy modern art museum of suburbanites is not really showing the nitty gritty of it all. one would hope that they would take more risks. show the truth. yeah, we see the abandoned buildings, but at least tell us a story about them, something we don't know, something personal. I totally see what anon is saying. Quit pointing the finger. Anon is just speaking the truth along with blanc canvas.
i understand race is a sensitive subject; it wasn't my intention to fuel the fire... just tossing in a different perspective that is all. i don't think it's racist to call attention to what is happening in the art community. i mean, going back to the Nepotism that was mentioned with S Hilberry and her underlings.. are they not all white, kinda keepin it 'in the family?'
chris m may think i'm racist.. well, the aforementioned Nepotism makes me as a non-white artist sometimes think the art world is racist. but i don't dwell on it, because racism is negative energy.. and i'm not hating on them, because it really has nothing to do with me. ANYWAY,,
it's actually strange that the subject of race is skipped around whenever the subject of the art is detroit, considering detroit's history and present polarities. i think it is possible to talk about it without fighting about it though.
chris fachini is in odu afrobeat orchestra. he is not in the human eye. regardless, i don't think that makes him a part of the shrinking city exhibition.
The Shrinking Cities one of final nails in coffin on the Detroit Art Scene. Mocad? who cares?
hey, i was born in detroit. i consider it my city. and our city. white and black to deal with. and anon brought up the race factor. separating white artists out at cranbrook --- when peter williams was represented there too. the old us vs. them mindset --- let it go. and deal with the problems and solutions.
technically i didn't separate the white artists out at cranbrook.. i wasn't the curator for that show. & peter williams is an amazing painter who deserves his success, but i don't think that his work being represented at cranbrook negates my original observation. 3 white male artists are telling whites in the suburbs about what's happening in the city. i never said this was a bad thing or that i didn't like it (not that it matters WHAT i think). really it's probably a good thing, i mean, i still hear about whites in the suburbs having an absurd fear of coming to detroit. so having someone they can relate to bringing a personal experience of the city to them may help break down old fears and illusions. like i said previously, i have much respect for snider, cope and hocking as artists.
"the old us vs. them mindset" IS a bloody nuisance. i didn't create it, it's out there and we all deal with it every glorious day. missy your suggestion to let it go and deal with the problems and solutions.. well how exactly do you do both at the same time? and how can we deal with the problems and solutions without having these delightful conversations?
i like this blank canvas person! more i say, more!
anon is only perpetuating racist attitudes. the notion of the elite suburbs against poor detroit, white against black. i am and know plenty of blacks who left detroit, long ago along with white flighters. i know plenty of whites whove moved into detroit. i grew up in southfield. and when i go to cranbrook i dont see a white message for white surbanites. im reading there about the region's core city and how 3 other cities in the world have suffered similar fates and how they live and deal with them.
i don't think the shrinking cities show is strictly a white message for white people. after all, cranbrook is open to the public. although my original comment has brought race to the forefront of this dialogue, the shrinking cities show is about much more than race. as far as detroit goes it seems difficult to NOT include race in the dialogue about the condition of this city and it's surrounding communities. alas, i have discovered that it is taboo to talk about such things.
~although i have had personal encounters that lead me to think people in the 'elite suburbs' ARE against people in 'poor detroit'- and it can be difficult to not see it as a race issue- it's not my intention to perpetuate racist attitudes. i do think it's important to call attention to racist attitudes however. and at the same time i try to remain open to the possibility that i'm misinterpreting people's actions, which has happened on occasion because my perception can certainly 'color' my experiences. i think at times it is challenging to see beyond race in a race-centric, polarized culture.
& yes there are people of both races who cross color lines and migrate from suburbs to city/city to suburbs (myself included) in spite of racist attitudes that exists to one degree or another in both. i commend their (and my) bravery.
going with the nepotism line of reasoning if you included object orange's photos in the show you will then be including greg tom who took most the photo's from that group and who is also being prepped to take over mitch cope's job at mocad.
nepotism yes, but would that have broken the three degrees from hilberry theory? since that group has shown with kotula and not suzy?
shrinking blogs
-------------------+
I say, lets stop doing the self-centered "talk about ourselves (meaning Detroit) thing," and lets start having some really groundbreaking contemporary art exhibits, ones with contemporary art concerns and contemporary art concepts. Let's bring important people into Detroit and stop making a huge fuss about showing Detroiters. Is this 'museum' about Detroit; is it a journal for us to record our personal thoughts, or is it an incredible venue for displaying monumental art where we have the opportunity to show ourselves and the art world that we are an art force to be reckoned with. I know it's dramatic, but get real. We've never had this oportunity before, at least not on this scale, and now we do. Let's use it. Let's get serious and quick!
If this blog represents the Detroit area at all--then Detroiters are the most provincial, small-minded, self-centered people I've ever heard of... These arguments reflect a lack of experience out in the world...
would you mind bringing your experiences from out in the world into this blog, to raise us out of our self-centered, small-minded little hells?
wow, it never ceases to amaze me how amazingly uninformed this blog is. it greatly takes away from the credibility of ann or "blank canvas." laughingstock.
"...credibility of ann or blank canvass"... you wrote that? seriously? lol.
"....Let's bring important people into Detroit ...."
Sculptor Barbara Chase-Riboud will be in Detroit on Sunday, February 18th to recieve the Alain Locke Award at the Detroit Institute of Arts. The awards ceremony and lecture will take place at 2pm in the Lecture Hall.
nepotism is getting a real boost at mocad. next show will be a board members collection.
this will be groundbreaking for all the wrong reasons. i want to join the board now and show my collection.
that's building credibility at mocad = power and influence from within will get you a show.
three degrees from suzy hillberry just got tighter... like a noose.
a detroit museum that can't support detroit artists (unless they work for the place) but can support detroit collectors (if they help run the place).
Thanks Leoqueen,
We should all take advantage of this opportunity to support the DIA and possibly meet Barbara. But I was mostly referring to this brilliant new venue that we have recently been blessed with (MOCAD). The DIA, despite the blogger criticism of it and its methods, certainly does its fair share of "bringing important people into Detroit..." MOCAD, as a contemporary art museum 'should' have the same ability to bring us groundbreaking exhibitions featuring magnificent 'untouchable' artists that we never dreamed we'd have the chance to meet in person, or art that simply blows our mind its so good. I'm just saying, when I think of what a contemporary art museum 'at its best' should be able to do, in time (not too long I hope) and with the right curatorial staff, MOCAD can do just that. It can be more than just another art museum. It can set trends in the art world and expose Detroiters to things that they haven't seen rather than re-exposing them to what they see every day. That is, if we are saying that there is room for improvement here, which it sounds like we are.
I don't think there would be any negative comments here if MoCAD was on the right track. I think everyone is intelligent enough and have gone to other cities and visited other contemporary museums to know what they are like even at their most mediocre. We could live with mediocre. But MoCAD keeps opening itself to harsh criticism by its lack of vision and leadership. Nepotism and self-interest seem to rule the day. Everyone hopes for the next show, or the next staff. Why?! The museum should be groundbreaking or at the least simply blow our minds from the start. Or build on each show, better and better. But it only seems to be sliding down.
And I don't care about its stature in the rest of the art world. It is here, now, and serves the Detroit community. I care about its stature here, which at this point is lacking all the necessary and key ingredients for any such success. And this next show from a board member only feeds the chagrin.
I visited the museum today and they were setting up for some kind of big soiree that we're not invited to. I'm not sure if chagrin is on the menu but I saw tents and lots of drinks.
More obvious than the nepotism is that the place just looks like crap. The printed displays are curling up, the partitions are warped, the artificial light is crummy, and the information labels are from Kinkos. Art that is purposefully scruffy looking loses its impact when the display space is even scruffier. I know they left the space raw on purpose, but it's not working.
I saw a lot of people working on setting up the event, so they appear to have resources. It's a shame that it's all wasted.
"More obvious than the nepotism is that the place just looks like crap. The printed displays are curling up, the partitions are warped, the artificial light is crummy, and the information labels are from Kinkos. Art that is purposefully scruffy looking loses its impact when the display space is even scruffier. I know they left the space raw on purpose, but it's not working.
I saw a lot of people working on setting up the event, so they appear to have resources. It's a shame that it's all wasted."
you should know that you are blaming MOCAD for some things that should be blamed on the Shrinking Cities exhibition itself. and there are only like four paid positions, all those other people you saw working are probably either volunteers or people with an outside organization.
it seems like there are some good arguments to be made, but there is also a lot of hating and sour grapes going on. legitimate criticisms of this museum will help all of us have a better museum in our city, but misinformed complaining isn't going to do anything other than maybe mend some sorry egos.
and also everyone up in arms about anonymous' comment (the fifth from the top) really need to check themselves. get some critical reasoning skills.
This museum is something some of us have waited decades to happen. So, yeah, we do have a few expectations. And most are not unreasonable. Like vision and focus for the museum and its schedule. And there is money to be had from the board and friends: Bert Aaron's got his collection coming; Manoogian; Taubman; Karmanos; and others. Those that are invited to special events. Those that host these events, such as the proposed artist auction at some offsite location.
What the place does best though is hype up thin air!
The NY Times article that went on and on about architect Zago's remaking of the space into an urban palace for art is the best example of such total out-of-control spin. The guy hung some lights and built a john.
If they involved the art community with open arms (not just for grunt and volunteer work) alongside the rich, and if they just brought in art that is just interesting enough to make a person want to go back more than once (no big names necessary) then that would be enough.
Maybe Shrinking Cities should have just been installed at Cranbrook, with all the text and problems of Detroit. And Mocad could have installed just such an exhibit, but specific to Mocad's problems and possible solutions. My previous paragraph/sentence wasn't a rip so much as a suggestion for such a success: just do what a museum does best and get some real focus meaning hire someone who can do just that. the place needs a leader. everybody's titled "acting" for the moment, including Mocad. Acting like it wants to be more but without the will or cast to pull it off.
I say project our proposed future greatness beyond the boundaries of Detroit and even beyond the boundaries of Michigan because when art communities begin to recieve national (and even international) exposure, governments and big businesses begin to pay attention. There used to be a time when artists could get government grants in Michigan. That was taken away and what did we do about it. Nothing! MOCAD is a huge piece for us. It's our queen in a game of art chess that art communities all over the world are playing with the people who decide what art is worth looking at and eventually supporting.
Not to stray from the topic of MOCAD, but Detroit art is the shit! It stands way above the art of most cities that I've been to. And I can't remember the last time that a Detroiter was featured in New American Paintings magazine (I'm only using this example because the deadline is approaching for our region, Feb. 28). It's always artists from Chicago. All I'm saying is that Detroit needs to play harder. MOCAD needs to play harder. We need to believe in and represent our art community for what it is, brilliant! But where is our art district(s)? Where is our support? We are all we have. Did you know that the Russel Industrial Building has huge space for rent for next to nothing ($) with great potential that a small group of artists could use to generate even further interest in the area? Look into it.
I could rant like this all day. I apologize if I strayed too far from the topic.
Homo Sapien, there have been only two Metro Detroit artists in that New American magazine in the last 6 years that I have seen......Nancy Thayer and Melanie Manos.
I dont mention this to contradict you, but to support your contention that Metro Detroit artists need to become more proactive about applying for this and any other national funding opportunity. Chicago artists must apply in great numbers, thats why they outnumber everyone else in the Midwestern edition.
The late artist Benny Andrews, who was the Grants Officer of the NEA once said that the reason Michigan artists didnt receive NEA individual artists grants [when they were still offered] is because Michigan artists werent applying. He had come in for a lecture, and researched the statistics ahead of time because he knew he would be questioned about why Michigan artists were not funded.
New American Painting deadine is February 28th, it is every year for the Midwest Competition. Everyone, apply.
Midwestern Region (IL, IN, IA, WI, MI, MN, MO, OH)
Deadline:Feb 28
Release Date:August 1
Juror: Elizabeth Dunbar, Curator, Kemper Museum of Contemporary Art, Kansas City, MO
Here is the web URL
http://www.newamericanpaintings.com/artistinfo.htm
Mr Sapien,
To your point of advancing our artists, the Museum of New Art (MONA) has recently announced a three pronged effort to achieve just that:
1) A global art exchange, swapping Detroit artists and work with galleries in London, Hamburg and Canada for starts. NY, and LA to follow. Making simple arrangements with these galleries to send our work over there, in exchange for theirs here. (European artists are anxious to show their work to an American audience.)
2) Begin a 12x12 project here, much like the one currently operating at the Chicago MCA and several other museums throughout the country. (This is not a new idea to Detroit, having once had the Michigan Artist Project running at the DIA.) Showcasing a different local artist every month. The first of these will be launched next month.
3) Reviving the Artcore Project we initiated downtown three years ago: taking empty storefronts and populating them with small artist collective galleries. The first of these is set to open in March as well.
These are only a few initiatives that should raise the awareness of our artists both here and in the larger art world. Anyone who would like to support these or other efforts may contact me at: detroitmona@aol.com
Thank you,
Candace O'Leary
Projects Coordinator
Museum of New Art (MONA)
Thanks Candace,
I wonder if you (or Jef) and Ann could work something out (images, info, etc.) that could be included in its own post for better visibility. I know MONA does a lot for the area and its hard to believe that Jef more-or-less funds that project all on his own accord. It's inspiring, really!
But it now being located in Pontiac seems a bit 'bass ackwards' if you know what I mean. We could really use (Detroit)MONA back here in Detroit. I remember when it was on Washington before it apparantly was kicked out (just speculation) courtesy of that Dirty Show before it found its new home at Tangent. MONA was (and still is, just at a greater distance) a good source for recent art graduates and up-and-coming artists, in addition to the art community as a whole.
Either way, thank you for the heads up Candace. This sounds like a brilliant project and with MONA behind the reigns, I have no doubt that it will be executed with a certain professional quality that we can all be satisfied with.
I'm beginning to like homo sapien(s)...
MONA has gone where we're invited. We were shown the door out of Detroit for a lot of reasons, but the dirty show wasn't one of them. We'd already been given our walking papers when dirty rented our space.
Tried for a year to find another venue downtown, but everybody wanted big money -- the Superbowl greed was starting to work on landlords.
Detroit every day for three years and would do it again if an offer was made. Even if it was to help restart the Artcore spaces.
It'll never be Detroit for us either, but Pontiac works for a lot of reasons. Mostly, good and generous landlords. Allowing us to do whatever we can and want.
nadia- I would like to point out that unpaid volunteers ARE considered resources: bigger resources, as a matter of fact, than paid employees. So polish off your own critical thinking, maybe?
I am surprised by the continued support for MOCAD when it appears to "disrespect" Detroit in so many more ways than the DIA, and yet there was a receny maelstrom of criticism when it was supposed that the DIA "thought Detroiters were stupid". In my opinion, MOCAD implies over and over again that Detroit Art/ Artists are inferior. And yet you all continue to support MOCAD.
It really perplexes me.
Well, shall we paint MOCAD orange? Or at least cover it with some Situationist graf to draw attention to our discontent? Vandals? If the diseases of nepotism and privilege are as blatant as the loquacious among us charge, then fuck being polite, don't just say so on some wonderful blog, *show so* where it matters, provoke a response, call shame, make them paint over and hide it, make of the metaphor an action.
"don't just say so on some wonderful blog, *show so* where it matters"
I know I'm taking this out of context, but anon makes a good point. Commenting on this blog, one of our primary methods for 'round table' discourse, seems to be a bit limiting. I just recently began making these comments with the hope that it may stir up some action. How much is it actually going to stir?
I'm overjoyed to here that MONA would be willing to come back to Detroit if given the right opportunity. As artists in the community, we should take advantage of this confirmation. If we know anybody who can provide this "right opportunity" then we should approach them. Don't be shy.
And it's really disapointing to hear so many distressing remarks made towards MOCAD. I mean, the way it sounds is like the majority of us (even the more intelligent commenters) would be for the idea of some form of hostile takeover. Wow... This is Detroit's museum right? Do we have any sort of 'democratic' say in what happens with MOCAD? Can the community play the role of share holders in big business, elect board members, and dismiss the weakest links if necessary? Can we decide as a community, brainstorm, poll ideas, etc. as to what shows and events we would like to take place at MOCAD? Or is this all a hoax (don't agree with this one so quickly. It's only being said in regards to the art mag articles, which seem to consistently have quotes from Marsha Miro saying "my museum.")
So, what say do we have, and if we have any, then what do we want to say?
Someone just informed me that the people who fund the museum have the say. What about us little people, the ones without the money? I'll end here. What do you think?
i beleive there was passive protesting (not, like, picket signs, but a petition?) prior to the first show?
I would like to beleive that the community has a lot of say. But there's the risk, you know: Can you reform MOCAD, or just tear it down? And if you tear down MOCAD in hopes of something better, will something else take it's place at all or will you be tearing it down to be replaced by nothing?
But the compliance the art community is showing in action (while grumbling on this blog) is allowing the status quo to remain the status quo. And the status quo (IE the nepotism and disrespect, in my opinion) is not OK.
MOCAD cannot survive without an audience. An audience beyond the rich sponsors. The Detroit community will make or break it because that's the real audience to be had. So there's the power for active change.
Boycott the next show of the board member's collection!! That'll send a real message.
The director at LA's museum was even more specific: "Our museum exists for the artists' community. It's from them that we draw our strength."
M. and Frank,
You're both absolutely correct. We can either make or break the museum, but I'm certainly against breaking it even if it means that we (the community) get more say.
What about negotiation. Is there a way that we can get the board members into a room with the arts community? Who knows if they even read this blog. If what we desire is change, then we should voice our opinion to the people in charge. But by all means, don't boycott the museum.
With effort, change can occur over time. But death is permanent. I vote to keep the museum alive, and while we're at it, let's keep it strong at least until the change does take place and the museum no longer need our 'pitty support,' but instead gets our real support.
You can get them in a room. And you can hand them a petition. Or a proposal. And they will agree to it. Even say they could have written it themselves. But to implement anything is a different question. I have been there and it is frustrating.
sapien, you have to open up the critical discussion. There has been very little criticism of MOCAD (most of the articles, are "oh, isn't this nice?" shadowing low expectations). If it were up to me, I'd organize T-shirts. Go and pity support them, but make sure that it's clear that it's pity support and that you disagree with... (insert one of a million possible points here).
Post a Comment
<< Home